5.  The applicants are: 4.  Ms Maret Abubakarovna Ilyasova, born in 1978.
They live in Mesker-Yurt, Shali District, the Chechen Republic. The first applicant is the mother of Mr Adam Abubakarovich Ilyasov, born in 1983. The other applicants are his brother and sisters.
6.  Mr Adam Ilyasov lived with his family at 95 Lenina Street, Mesker-Yurt, Shali District, Chechen Republic. He had never been detained or charged with any offences.
7.  According to the first applicant, on 15 November 2002 at around 6 a.m., when she was at home with her daughter and son, Mr Adam Ilyasov, armed servicemen of the Russian federal forces approached the Ilyasovs’ house in three armoured personnel carriers (APCs) with licence plates covered with mud. They were wearing masks and uniforms without any insignia. They were armed mostly with small arms and some of them had portable radio transmitters. The servicemen broke into the house and smashed everything inside: they broke doors, tore out window frames, turned the furniture upside down, scattered things everywhere and broke the windows of Mr Adam Ilyasov’s truck, a GAZ-3307, which was parked in the yard of the house. They presented neither identity papers nor a search or detention order. When the first applicant tried to intervene, one of the servicemen kicked her in the chest and she fell on the floor. Then they grabbed Mr Adam Ilyasov, twisted his arms, threw him in the APC and drove off in an unknown direction. They also took his passport, driving licence and documents for the truck.
8.  Ms M. Il., Mr Adam Ilyasov’s aunt, and Ms M. Is., his sister-in-law, submitted written statements providing their account of the events. They stated that they shared the same yard as the applicants. On 15 November 2002 at around 6.15 a.m. armed men in four APCs with registration numbers covered with mud came from the Khankala direction. They were tall, spoke Russian without an accent, were wearing uniforms without any insignia and masks and carried small arms. Some of them had portable radio transmitters and shields. They did not let anyone in the Ilyasovs’ house. They searched the house, having broken the windows and the door, and broke the windows of the truck parked in the yard. Then they took Mr Adam Ilyasov and left in the direction of the Argun Military Commander’s Office. They produced no documents to authorise either the search or Mr  Ilyasov’s arrest.
9.  Mr Adam Ilyasov has never been seen again.
10.  The Government submitted that in the course of the investigation in case no. 59274 it was established that on 15 November 2002 at approximately 6.15 a.m. unidentified persons in camouflage uniforms armed with automatic weapons had abducted Mr Adam Ilyasov from his house and had taken him to an unknown destination.
11.  The applicants applied in writing and in person to numerous State authorities seeking to establish Mr Adam Ilyasov’s whereabouts. Copies of the applications have been submitted to the Court. Their applications filed with the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic were forwarded to the Shalinskiy District Prosecutor’s Office. Their applications filed with the Military Prosecutor of the United Group Alignment (UGA) were forwarded to the Military Prosecutor of military unit no. 20116. A written application was lodged for the first time by the first applicant on 29 November 2002.
12.  On 10 December 2002 the Shalinskiy District Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings in case no. 59274 concerning the abduction of Mr Adam Ilyasov by unidentified representatives of the federal forces.
13.  On 11 December 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. It appears that she was questioned on the same date. The first applicant confirmed her account of the events set out in paragraph 7 above.
14.  On 15 December 2002 the investigating authorities sent requests to the Shali department of the Federal Security Service (FSB), the Shali District Military Commander, the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20116, the deputy commander of the UGA, the first deputy head of the Temporary United Alignment of Agencies and Units of the Ministry of the Interior [ВОГО и П МВД – временная объединенная группировка органов и подразделений МВД], and the commander of the interior troops of the Ministry of the Interior in the North-Caucasian Region so as to identify which units were involved in the special operation carried out in Mesker-Yurt on 15 November 2002. According to the replies received, none of those agencies had conducted a special operation in Mesker-Yurt on the date in question or had any information about Mr Adam Ilyasov or his whereabouts. Likewise, the heads of remand prisons situated in North Caucasia reported that they had no information about Mr Adam Ilyasov since he had never been held in those facilities.
15.  According to the Government, during an inspection of the Ilyasov’s house conducted on an unspecified date no items were seized and no evidence was found.
16.  On 10 February 2003 the investigation was suspended on account of the failure to identify the culprits.  On 14 February 2003 the Shalinskiy District Prosecutor’s Office informed the first applicant of the suspension.
17.  On 13 August 2003 the Shalinskiy District Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicants’ representatives, SRJI, that the proceedings in criminal case no. 59274 instituted on 2 December 2002 had been suspended, that the first applicant had been granted victim status and that she could apply to the Shalinskiy District Prosecutor’s Office for a copy of the decision to that effect.
18.  On 15 August 2003 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that on that date the decision to suspend the preliminary investigation had been quashed on account of its incompleteness, and the proceedings had been resumed.
19.  On 15 August 2003 the FSB informed the first applicant that Mr Adam Ilyasov had not been detained by the FSB.
20.  On 18 August 2003 the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the UGA informed the first applicant that her application had been examined. The inspection conducted had produced no evidence of involvement of servicemen in the abduction of Mr Adam Ilyasov.
21.  On 22 August 2003 the investigation in criminal case no. 59274 was actually resumed. The first applicant was informed of the resumption by a letter of 25 August 2003.
22.  On 23 August 2003 the Shalinskiy District Prosecutor’s Office informed the first applicant that her applications addressed to the Military Prosecutor’s Office and the President of Russia had been received by the Shalinskiy District Prosecutor’s Office and enclosed in the file pertaining to criminal case no. 59274. Investigative measures aimed at establishing the whereabouts of Mr Adam Ilyasov were being taken.
23.  The Government submitted the following information concerning the questioning of witnesses in the course of the investigation.
24.  On 25 August 2003 the investigating authorities questioned Ms Z. Sh., who submitted that she was the Ilyasovs’ neighbour. She stated that shortly after 6 a.m. on 15 November 2002 two APCs had driven down Lenina Street and stopped at the Ilyasovs’ house. After a while she had heard screaming coming from their yard. Later she had learned that Mr Adam Ilyasov had been abducted and his documents had been stolen. She submitted that Mr Adam Ilyasov had not been a member of any illegal armed groups.
25.  On an unspecified date the investigating authorities questioned Ms M. Il., Mr Adam Ilyasov’s aunt, who was the Ilyasovs’ neighbour. She submitted that in the morning of 15 November 2002 she had been at home. When she had heard a woman crying she had left her room and in the yard she had seen armed men dressed in camouflage and wearing masks. The first applicant, who had also been in the yard, had told her that those men had taken Mr Adam Ilyasov and his papers. Ms M. Il. had seen APCs in the street but had not noted their registration numbers.
26.  Ms E. Il., another aunt of Mr Adam Ilyasov, who was questioned on an unspecified date, submitted that she had learned about his abduction from her relatives. She also stated that Mr Adam Ilyasov had not been a member of any illegal armed groups.
27.  Ms P. A., questioned on an unspecified date, submitted that she was the Ilyasov’s relative. In the morning of 15 November 2002 she had learned from a fellow villager that Mr Adam Ilyasov had been abducted. She had no information that he had been involved in any unlawful activity. Ms Z. Kh. made a similar statement. It is not clear who she was.
28.  On 22 September 2003 the investigation was suspended.
29.  On 14 October 2003 SRJI applied in writing to the Prosecutor of the Shalinskiy District, asking him to provide information on the progress and results of the criminal investigation and to grant the first applicant the opportunity to study the case-file if the proceedings had been suspended. No reply was received.
30.  On 21 February 2005 the first applicant asked the Shalinskiy District Prosecutor’s Office for an update on the investigation.
31.  On 26 May 2005 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that requests had been sent to law-enforcement agencies and remand prisons of the neighbouring regions. According to the replies received, Mr Adam Ilyasov had not been held in any of those facilities. Investigative measures aimed at establishing his whereabouts and identification of the perpetrators were being carried out.
32.  On 28 May 2005 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that the investigation had been suspended on 22 September 2003.
33.  On 20 June 2005 the investigation was resumed. The first applicant was notified of the resumption on 21 June 2005.
34.  On 20 July 2005 the investigation was again suspended on account of the failure to identify the culprits. The first applicant was notified accordingly on the same day.
35.  On 19 October 2005 the Shali District Prosecutor’s Office resumed the investigation. The decision read, in particular:
“On 15 November 2002, at 6.15 a.m. unidentified persons in camouflage clothes armed with automatic weapons who arrived in two APCs abducted [Mr] Adam Ilyasov from his home ... and took [him] to an unknown destination. ...
Examination of the materials of the case revealed that the decision [to suspend the investigation] was premature, since investigative actions and operational measures to ... identify the culprits had not been fully carried out. ...
In the course of additional investigation in the case it is necessary: to update the plan of investigative-operational measures so as to include verification of new versions of events, to obtain and join to the materials of the case replies from law-enforcement agencies to which requests had been sent earlier, question again [the first applicant] (who might have new information concerning the circumstances of her son’s apprehension of which the investigation is not aware), to identify and question additional witnesses to [Mr Adam] Ilyasov’s abduction and to carry out other investigative-operational measures so as to take a final decision in the case. ...”
36.  The first applicant was informed of the resumption of the investigation on the same day.
37.  On 19 November 2005 the investigation was suspended again on account of the failure to identify the culprits.
38.  On 31 May 2007 the investigation was resumed. The decision read, in particular:
“...The decision to suspend the investigation was unlawful [since] not all the measures that could have been taken while the persons to be charged with the offence had not been identified had been carried out.
In particular, [witness V. M.] was not questioned, the GAZ-3307 truck was not inspected, a forensic medical examination of [the first applicant] was not conducted, a copy of [Mr Adam] Ilyasov’s identity document was not enclosed in the case file, no legal assessment was made in respect of the unidentified persons’ actions in the part related to the damaging of the Ilyasovs’ property and theft of [Mr Adam Ilyasov’s] documents.”
39.  On 19 December 2003 SRJI brought before the Shali Town Court a complaint concerning the inaction of the Shalinskiy District Prosecutor’s Office.
40.  On 23 June 2005 SRJI brought before the Shali Town Court another complaint concerning the inaction of the Shalinskiy District Prosecutor’s Office.
41.  On 23 September 2005 SRJI complained to the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic and the High Judicial Qualification Board that neither of the two complaints had been examined by the Shali Town Court.
42.  According to the reply of the Shali Town Court of 11 October 2005 it had not received either of the complaints.
43.  On 14 October 2005 SRJI re-submitted the complaint concerning the inaction of the Shalinskiy District Prosecutor’s Office to the Shali Town Court. They asked it, in particular, to order the Prosecutor’s Office to grant the first applicant access to the case file and to conduct a thorough investigation into her son’s abduction.
44.  On 13 March 2006 the Shali Town Court partially allowed the complaint. The district court ordered the district prosecutor’s office to grant the first applicant access to the case file in accordance with the procedure provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure. It rejected the complaint in the remaining part.
45.  Despite a specific request by the Court, the Government did not submit a copy of the file of the investigation into the abduction of Mr Adam Ilyasov. They submitted twenty-three pages of case-file materials containing decisions instituting, suspending and resuming the investigation and the decision of the Shali Town Court of 13 March 2006. The Government stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings. At the same time, the Government suggested that a Court delegation could have access to the “materials of the criminal cases containing no state or military secrets ... without making copies thereof” at the place where the preliminary investigation was being conducted in Russia.